cigchat_api_call

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the Authorization header is handled automatically and warns that this tool lacks the safety checks of dedicated tools, implying potential risk. It also provides the base URL and API reference. However, it does not detail error handling, response format, or side-effect risks beyond the safety caveat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with purpose ('Call any cig.chat API endpoint directly'), and every sentence adds value: usage guidance, safety warning, auth note, and API reference. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic API call tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, when to use, auth handling, token safety, base URL, and reference link. It doesn't explicitly state that response structure varies by endpoint, but the API reference link covers that gap. Missing explicit error-handling behavior, but it is a generic wrapper.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-related context: 'never put a token in the arguments' applies to body/query, and the base URL helps interpret the path parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Call any cig.chat API endpoint directly, for endpoints without a dedicated tool.' It clearly identifies the verb (call), resource (cig.chat API endpoints), and scope (endpoints without dedicated tools). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by advising 'Prefer the dedicated tool when one exists.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call any cig.chat API endpoint directly, for endpoints without a dedicated tool.' It also explains why to prefer dedicated tools: 'it has a validated schema and safety checks that this does not.' Additional usage rules include never putting a token in the arguments and the base URL.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.